Re: lies damn lies and benchmarks

Hmmm.... It seems that like in many product wars, people's knowledge is out of date:

• Sql server had had robust row level locking since version 7. Prior to this it was page locking, which could be clumsy.
• I have not seen anything with respect to RI in Oracle that can't be replicated in SQL server, including cascading constraints and foreign keys.
• SQL server has been implemented on systems with 32+ CPUS and 64GB+ of Ram with terabytes of online data. This does not match the high end Unix systems that Oracle can support, but how many apps need more than 2 CPUS, 2GB of Ram, and more than 50GB of online storage? With the exceptions of very large systems, which are a low percentage of the market, SQL Server can go toe to toe with Oracle.
• SQL Server has crushed Oracle on tpc benchmarks (www.tpc.org)
• Oracle is not fully SQL 92 compliant, so this is a red herring for both systems.
• SQL Server does comply with required ACID properties for an RDBMS.
• If you look at Codd's 12 rules, no RDBMS system in production today is compliant:

http://newton.uor.edu/FacultyFolder/CKettemborough/Codd12R.html

so... this a non-issue as well. All vendors adapt standards and rules to meet their business needs. This doesn't make it right, but you can't use this to criticize SQL Server without applying the same criticisms to Oracle.

Major holes for SQL Server are:

• Security holes inherent with Windows and vulnerabilities in domains. Oracle and iAS have their own holes, but they tend not to be as deep as SQL server. The answer in both cases is careful administration and firewalls!!
• Windows is too easily corrupted by other software which can replace, upgrade, or corrupt shared components. Unix systems are far less vulnerable, but Oracle on Windows is no better. However, Oracle seems to do best on Unix.
• Oracle has more features and a better internal language (PL/SQL). However, Oracle sacrifices performance when compared to SQL Server.
• SQL Server runs on only one platform, and is geared completely to this platform. In my mind, this is the biggest reason *not* to use SQL Server. However, for a small to medium office, why bother investing in an expensive Unix system or why bother going through the pain of becoming Linux competent? This is where SQL Server shines.

For small systems I think the argument weighs very heavily in favor of SQL Server. For very large systems, Oracle is the clear winner. For everything between the two extremes, the choice is not nearly as clear as people would like to think.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Weiss
mailto:chris_at_hpdbe.com
www.hpdbe.com
High Performance Database Engineering
Available for long and short term contracts

"Nuno Souto" <nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam> wrote in message
news:3cda5915$0$15473$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...


> In article <bslC8.377$pa4.220395_at_news.uswest.net>, you said (and I

> quote):

> >

> > Which features does MS SQL not provide that you consider fundamental

> > in an RDBMS?

>


> Not a secret.  Read Chris Date's and Ted Codd's 12 rules for RDBMS.

> Some:

> Declarative referential integrity would be tops in my list.

> Row locking would be next.

> Readers not blocking writers right up there as well.

> A standard implementation of the SQL language.

> Less important, but still very relevant:

> Non-subversion of the RDBMS access language.

> Non-subversion of the RDBMS model for its own internal dictionary.

>


> I'm sure if I spent any time learning more about it others would spring

> to mind.  Mostly to do with handling large volumes and/or 24X7. But I

> couldn't be bothered.

>


> --

> Cheers

> Nuno Souto

> nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam